I feel compelled to point out something important about this post and its author's posting history. While this review appears comprehensive and objective at first glance, I see a concerning pattern.
Looking through William Ferr's posting history on BiggerPockets, there's an unmistakable pattern of consistently promoting Jonathan Halves and his training course The Land Method and his Land Riches Blueprint, while criticizing other educators. You can see plenty of examples in these threads, where every contribution revolves around this same promotional angle:
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/927/topics/1195612-the-...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/1136123-what...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/48/topics/1103837-which...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/62/topics/1156841-scam-...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/44/topics/1159791-what-...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/79/topics/1121289-has-a...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/44/topics/1159791-what-...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/79/topics/32290-jack-bo...
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/12/topics/938096-land-f...
Given this pattern and the sophisticated marketing approach, I wouldn’t be surprised if "William Ferr" might actually be Jonathan Halves himself, or someone closely tied to his business. While I can't prove this definitively, the posting behavior strongly suggests this isn't coming from a typical satisfied customer.
What's interesting is how this latest post is carefully crafted to rank well in Google searches for people who are searching for education on land investing. As someone who used to work in SEO, I can see that the structure, length, and comparison format are classic SEO techniques. While there's nothing inherently wrong with SEO, the intent here raises concerns.
There's also an ironic element to these reviews. He is critiquing products and courses that he hasn’t personally used. Any legitimate review should come from firsthand experience with the product or service. Offering definitive opinions about courses you haven't taken is like reviewing restaurants you've never eaten at.
I think it's important to acknowledge that every land educator has contributed value to the field. Perhaps some more than others, but each one brings a unique perspective. What resonates with one person may be different than another. Rather than tearing down everyone, I’d rather focus on how different teaching styles and strategies might suit different investors' needs.
When someone consistently promotes one product while criticizing others they haven't tried, it undermines the trust and authenticity that makes this forum valuable.
I'm not trying to create conflict here, but as someone who has learned a lot from different educators in the land investing space, it is concerning when I see someone posting carefully disguised spam and trying to make it look like an unbiased review.